Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Individual- and household-level factors associated with fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber adequacy among Native American adults in 6 reservation communities

Abstract: This study utilized baseline data collected in 2017 from the OPREVENT2 trial, which included 540 Native Americans in six Midwest and Southwest reservation communities. The objective was to identify correlates of fruit, vegetable, and dietary fiber adequacy among participants 18–75 years old who self-identified as the main food purchaser or preparer in their household. Mean daily servings of fruits and vegetables and grams of dietary fiber were quantified based on a 30-day semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Participants consumed an average of 0.5 (±0.4) cup-equivalent servings of fruit, 2.5 (±1.8) cup-equivalent servings of vegetables, and 15.5 (±8.9) grams of fiber per day. Females had a prevalence ratio 1.4 times greater than males for adequate intakes of vegetables (p = 0.008) and over 6 times greater for dietary fiber (p These findings can help guide the development of targeted interventions to improve diet quality; however, further work is needed to understand and address underlying reasons for low fruit consumption in these rural reservation communities.

Race and Property After the Civil War: Creating the Right to Exclude

Abstract: This Article uncovers a lost history of property, showing the role that race and white supremacy played in the development of modern trespass law. Property law does not change in response to economic opportunities, evolving to ever-more efficiency. Instead, property law reflects political power. At times, the political process may reorient property law to produce a larger surplus. Oftentimes, politics produce redistribution from the weak to the powerful. States closed the range to coerce blacks into working for white landowners for low wages and under bad conditions. Southern society as a whole suffered from the planter’s greed. Low wages and cruel laws impoverished not only black and white sharecroppers, but the entire region. Changing property law was a core element of the program of legal aggression that began with the black codes and continued with Jim Crow.

Trade's Security Exceptionalism

Abstract: At the core of U.S. trade law is an understudied structural dichotomy. On the one hand, well-established statutory authorities enable the president to eliminate trade barriers through negotiations with U.S. trading partners. On the other hand, different, lesser-known authorities allow the president to erect trade barriers on an exceptional basis where necessary for U.S. economic security. Rather than thinking of free trade as a source of or tool for economic security as political theorists long have, our law codifies them in contrast to one another – allowing departures from the free trade norm when security so demands. Further, the two categories of authorities suffer from a mismatch in what I call “trade delegation disciplines”: while Congress kept tight controls on the president’s free trade negotiations, it abandoned controls on the exceptional security-driven authorities, empowering the executive to handle U.S. trade interests in an unbridled way that our nation’s founders feared. This Article is the first to identify how trade law has exceptionalized security. It develops an original typology of the categories of congressional delegations that constitute our exceptional trade apparatus. This structural account delivers both positive and normative payoffs. Apart from explaining the institutional terrain, identifying the dichotomy challenges the traditional assumption that all executive departures from the prevailing free trade norm are illegal and illegitimate. The historical record demonstrates that, surprisingly, security exceptionalism in U.S. trade law is the product of misunderstood statutes that have been unmoored from their original purposes. Finally, although the exceptions may be difficult to undo or to correct, this analysis shows that trade law has space for a wide array of innovative and non-traditional disciplines that could serve to limit the damage that exceptionalizing security has caused. A review of those options likewise prescribes certain lessons for the limitations of the nondelegation doctrine and separation of powers.

Night and Day: Coeur d’Alene , Breard , and the Unraveling of the Prospective-Retrospective Distinction in Eleventh Amendment Doctrine

Abstract: The Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v. Jordan has been read to establish a distinction between suits seeking prospective relief from a state official's violation of federal law (which are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Ex parte Young) and suits seeking retrospective relief from the state (which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, even if the officer is the defendant). Commentators and the lower courts have long had difficulty understanding and applying the distinction. Until recently, the principal effect of the Edelman line of cases has been to bar suits seeking damages and similar monetary relief from the state. In two recent Supreme Court cases, Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho and Breard v. Greene, the Supreme Court has denied relief on Eleventh Amendment grounds in suits seeking nonmonetary relief that appeared to be prospective in nature. In different ways, these decisions invite a reconsideration of the prospective-retrospective distinction. This article argues that the exception to Ex parte Young recognized in the Edelman case originally extended only to retrospective monetary relief. Gradually and without explanation, this exception was extended in dicta to encompass all retrospective relief. A rule comprehensively barring retrospective relief but permitting prospective relief is problematic in at least two ways. First, the concepts of prospectivity and retrospectivity are highly indeterminate. For example, the latter concept is amenable to the construction given to it in the Breard case, in which it was held to encompass a request for an injunction halting an allegedly unlawful execution scheduled to take place in the future. Ex parte Young itself demonstrates the error of this counterintuitive holding, but what is striking is the plausibility of the holding as an application of the Supreme Court's test for distinguishing prospective from retrospective relief. Second, a comprehensive prospective-retrospective test cannot be squared with the results the Supreme Court has reached. This article argues that the Edelman exception to Ex parte Young should be confined to its original scope. A rule excluding from the Ex parte Young exception only suits seeking retrospective monetary relief would explain the decided cases, would be easily administrable, and would better cohere with other aspects of the Court's jurisprudence in this area than would a comprehensive prospective-retrospective test or other possible alternatives.

HIV Screening in Health Care Settings: Public Health and Civil Liberties in Conflict?

Abstract: On September 22nd, 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a sweeping revision of its guidelines for HIV screening in health care settings that reversed decades of habitual thinking on AIDS policy. Previous guidelines recommended HIV testing only for persons at high-risk or in health care settings with high HIV prevalence. This reflected a civil liberties approach that constrained testing with costly, cumbersome procedures for pre-test counseling and written informed consent. The new guidelines represent a radical departure by recommending HIV screening for all individuals ages 13 to 64 as a part of routine medical care irrespective of lifestyle, perceived risk, or HIV prevalence. The recommendations incorporate a concept known as "opt-out" testing, which notifies all patients that testing will be performed unless an individual specifically declines. Separate written informed consent would no longer be required, but rather general consent for medical care would be sufficient. Similarly, counseling would not be required with HIV diagnostic testing or as part of HIV screening programs. This commentary examines the social and historical context of HIV screening, the changing epidemiology of HIV/AIDS, legislative and liability barriers to implementing CDC guidelines, and enduring conflicts between public health and civil liberties approaches to HIV/AIDS. The commentary concludes that the new CDC guidelines will facilitate prevention and treatment, but must overcome cultural and legal obstacles for success.